Widescreen TV's a major contributor to the Global Warmigg Crisis.

On Thu, 5 Jul 2007 14:58:36 +0100, foghollow
wrote:

In article , cynic_999
says...
On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 13:15:20 GMT, JAF
wrote:

"Recorded" does not *have* to refer to a
deliberate act by man.

This is the same tactic used by cretinists/ID-iots. As soon as you point
out an error, they change their definitions.

Is it also a tactic to snip the context as you have done?

As I stated and you snipped, the words "recorded history" were used in
a context in which it was 100% clear exactly what I was referring to -
the climate graph produced from the ice record. Thus using *any*
other definition as a reason for refuting the point I was making is
disingenius.


********. "recorded history" has always and will always refer to the stor[y|ies] of mankind's past as
written down by people. You can't change what it means at a whim.

It is most commonly taken to mean that.

It is by no means invariably taken to mean that, and it was quite
obvious what Cynic meant by the term there.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Actually, cats are quite good at domesticating humans.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 19:44:45 +0100, Scott
wrote:

Cynic wrote:
On Thu, 5 Jul 2007 15:37:15 +0100, "Pyriform"
wrote:

Cynic wrote:
The main point however is that climate change is not something that is
suddenly happening for the first time, so there is no need to look for
reasons for it that have not existed since prehistoric times.

That's complete mind-rot. The whole point of climate science is to
understand the forcing and feedback mechanisms that control climate. Our
understanding of the past is what allows us to be confident that the present
warming is acyclic. There are no external forcings that can account for it,
and the changes observed are beyond what might be expected from natural
variability. We are left with increased atmospheric CO2 levels due to human
activity as the smoking gun.

The *results" are not in the slightest atypical when compared with
what has happened quite naturally in the past.


You can say what you like but that doesn't make it true. The data shows that
the current warming is very atypical

Say it as often as you like, it does not make it true - the graph
speaks for itself

--
Cynic

On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 19:15:03 GMT, JAF
wrote:

On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 18:34:25 +0100, Cynic wrote:

a) The planet has already become warmer as a result of anthropogenic CO2
emissions, as revealed by instrumental temperature records, rising
sea-levels, glacial retreat and other observations.

But no worse than has happened several times in the past before Man
arrived on the scene. So why blame Man this time?

Anthropogenic, ****wit, anthropogenic.
Who else are you going to blame if it's anthropogenic? Tiddy Munn?

So who do *you* blame for the previous 4 times it has happened?

--
Cynic

On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 20:11:40 +0100, Scott
wrote:

c) That we need to restrict future increases in atmospheric CO2 levels so as
to limit the inevitable global mean temperature rise and its associated
effects on sea levels and regional climate.

Why do you imagine a positive feedback has to be unconstrained?


Where is there any assumption about it being either constrained or unconstrained?

If it is constrained then there is nothing to worry about - It'll top
out all by itself.

It's the coming ice-age that's likely to be more problematic - but
that's a long way off and I have no doubt that our present technology
will look to the people in that time like the technology of cavemen
looks to us. If we haven't wiped *ourselves* out in the meantime.

--
Cynic

Cynic wrote:
On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 19:44:45 +0100, Scott
wrote:

Cynic wrote:
On Thu, 5 Jul 2007 15:37:15 +0100, "Pyriform"
wrote:

Cynic wrote:
The main point however is that climate change is not something
that is suddenly happening for the first time, so there is no
need to look for reasons for it that have not existed since
prehistoric times.

That's complete mind-rot. The whole point of climate science is to
understand the forcing and feedback mechanisms that control
climate. Our understanding of the past is what allows us to be
confident that the present warming is acyclic. There are no
external forcings that can account for it, and the changes
observed are beyond what might be expected from natural
variability. We are left with increased atmospheric CO2 levels due
to human activity as the smoking gun.

The *results" are not in the slightest atypical when compared with
what has happened quite naturally in the past.


You can say what you like but that doesn't make it true. The data
shows that the current warming is very atypical

Say it as often as you like, it does not make it true - the graph
speaks for itself

It's not saying what you think it is. Indeed, you are the only person I have
ever come across who has interpreted it in that way! Perhaps you should stop
listening to the voices in your head.

On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 21:50:48 +0100, Alex Heney
wrote:

I think "recorded hostory" goes back no more than 8000 years (and I'm being very generous there),
that's what I think

So you are saying that the data from the ice records is not accurate?

No, he is saying it is not part of "recorded history", which is most
commonly taken to mean the period of history for which records (made
by man) are available.

It would be if taken in isolation. however the phrase was used in the
context of quite a lengthy exchange in which the record being referred
to was quite obvious.

"History" of itself in isolation is usually taken to mean the history
of *man's* activities rather than climate or other natural phenomenae.

--
Cynic

"Bob Latham" wrote in message
...
Actually what will happen is this will all fizzle out and then it will
either be forgotten like global cooling or it will be "thanks to our
actions we've saved the world".

But the problem is that by the time they think up some other bandwagon and
the global warming thing fizzles out, real harm will have been done to
western economies. Meanwhile the far east will shoot ahead, and we will end
up in a position where they are politically and militarily dominant.

I think the present global warming fiasco is a very great threat to the
standard of living of the prosperous nations, and also to our future
security.

Even if the global warming science is 100% accurate (and who am I to doubt
it?) the above still stands. In our attempt to save the planet we will hand
it to the far east. And the attempt is doomed anyway because there's no way
that the far east will ever reduce its CO2 emissions, and soon they will
dwarf those of the west. Our attempts are like ****ing in the ocean, except
that we aren't ****ing away **** we are ****ing away our standard of living
and our security.

Bill

On 6 Jul, 01:03, "Bill Wright" wrote:
"Bob Latham" wrote in message

...

Actually what will happen is this will all fizzle out and then it will
either be forgotten like global cooling or it will be "thanks to our
actions we've saved the world".

But the problem is that by the time they think up some other bandwagon and
the global warming thing fizzles out, real harm will have been done to
western economies. Meanwhile the far east will shoot ahead, and we will end
up in a position where they are politically and militarily dominant.

I think the present global warming fiasco is a very great threat to the
standard of living of the prosperous nations, and also to our future
security.

Even if the global warming science is 100% accurate (and who am I to doubt
it?) the above still stands. In our attempt to save the planet we will hand
it to the far east. And the attempt is doomed anyway because there's no way
that the far east will ever reduce its CO2 emissions, and soon they will
dwarf those of the west. Our attempts are like ****ing in the ocean, except
that we aren't ****ing away **** we are ****ing away our standard of living
and our security.

Bill

Our survey says - 100

You hit the nail on the head there Bill, and apologies for using one
of TV's worst ever shows to convey my agreement.

Doc

Cynic wrote:
On Thu, 5 Jul 2007 13:20:49 +0100, "Amethyst Deceiver"
wrote:

I prefer Occum's razor. Global warming has occured 5 times in
recorded history in a regular cyclical pattern. We are going
through
==============

I think not.

Why do you think not?

Because you don't know what "recorded history" means. It means
history that people lived through and wrote about. Pre-people - no
recorded history.

Don't be so pedantic. The context of the discussion made it perfectly
clear what I was referring to.

In any case, I would take issue with your definition - it depends what
events are being recorded. "Recorded" does not *have* to refer to a
deliberate act by man. The evidence left by ice and tree rings are
records of historic events just as much as a record written by a man -
and cannot be falsified or be subject to human error.

Yes it does. That's the point of "recorded history". You can change the
definition to suit your argument but don't whine when people pull you up for
doing so.

Bob Latham wrote:
You can say what you like but that doesn't make it true. The data
shows that the current warming is very atypical and throughout the
20th century CO2 has been the dominant factor.

Explain why for 4 decades of the industrial boom, smack bang in the
middle of your 20th century with oodles of man made CO2/global
warming, the temperature dropped.

The increasing CO2 signal was submerged for a while by pollution from
sulphate aerosols, which has a cooling effect. Once those were reduced
(clean air legislation was enacted around the globe), the CO2 signal once
again dominated, and has done ever since.

There is no proof CO2 causes temperatures to rise, there is proof
that CO2 rises 800 years *after* temperature. In the past when CO2
levels reached their peak, temperatures had been falling for 800
years.

You are an idiot.